By Monday's meeting, several council members had a change of heart, and the council voted 8-3 in favor of keeping funding at current levels.

"It's not just a feel-good program because we think our city should be at the top of the arts world," said Mayor John Hieftje, citing the economic benefits of public art.

Mayor John Hieftje, who two weeks ago supported cutting funding for public art, said he had a change of heart after thinking more deeply about it.

Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com

The originally proposed cut, had it won support, would have meant about $160,000 less per year going to public art. But the city's art fund still would have kept the nearly $1.5 million already built up, and it would have continued to generate about $160,000 per year.

Now, continuing at current funding levels, about $963,710 in city funds are expected to be channeled to public art over the next three years, records show.

That includes about $395,900 from streets, $68,850 from parks, $228,700 from the water utility, $197,240 from sewer, $71,270 from stormwater and $1,750 from solid waste.

Only three council members — Jane Lumm, Stephen Kunselman and Sabra Briere — favored cutting those transfer amounts in half.

"This is hugely disappointing," said Lumm, an Independent who represents the 2nd Ward, expressing regret about the way the vote went Monday night.

The city's public art program has come under attack multiple times in recent years. Each time, a majority of council members have agreed public art is an important economic development tool and contributes to quality of life in Ann Arbor, and so funding has been maintained.

Five council members who voted for the cuts two weeks ago changed their votes, including Sandi Smith, Christopher Taylor, Marcia Higgins, Carsten Hohnke and Hieftje.

They voted alongside Council Members Tony Derezinski, Margie Teall and Mike Anglin, all of whom never wavered in their support of public art funding.

Hohnke later clarified he only voted in favor of the proposal at first reading because he felt it warranted more discussion, including a public hearing at second reading. In fact, he had brought forward an amendment at the previous meeting to preserve current funding levels, but only Derezinski, Teall and Anglin backed him at the time.

The decision Monday night came after about an hour and a half of debate, including input from several members of the public and the art commission.

Ann Arbor resident Nancy Kaplan suggested the council stop debating the issue and put public art on the ballot so voters can offer clarity on the funding and duration of the program.

The council also voted 6-5 against placing a new three-year limit on spending or obligating public art dollars before they automatically revert back to their original funding sources. The five in favor of the three-year clause were Lumm, Kunselman, Higgins, Smith and Briere.

The city pays for public art through the Percent For Art Program. Under an ordinance approved by the City Council in 2007, 1 percent of the budget for all city capital projects — up to a limit of $250,000 per project — is set aside in a special public art fund.

Marsha Chamberlin, chairwoman of the Public Art Commission, speaks in favor of public art funding Monday night.

Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com

The city has transferred a little more than $2.2 million to public art over the last four years, nearly $1.5 million of which remains available to spend.

The proposal council members voted down would have reduced the program to a half-percent for the next three years.

The council voted 11-0 in favor of other changes to the public art ordinance, including making it so routine repairs of sidewalks do not qualify as capital projects that contribute toward public art, and also so no general fund dollars can go toward public art starting July 1.

The mayor and other council members stressed there isn't a link between the city's general fund — which pays for police and fire protection — and funding for public art.

"These monies are capital monies, and forbidden to use in connection with public safety, which we all wish were greater funded," said Taylor, D-3rd Ward.

"It's an issue of funding art or funding another couple of hundred feet of pavement, or some more sewers or water lines — that's what it's an issue about," Hieftje said.

"When it comes down to it, it would be essentially illegal for us to take these funds and spend them in the general fund," he added. "It would be fraud."

Taylor said he doubted whether the proposed cuts to public art would have helped the city do a better job of paving streets or fixing water and sewer lines.

Smith, D-1st Ward, said she had what she called an "epiphany" while crunching the numbers and realizing the minimal impact the public art program has on city residents.

"The difference between 1 percent and a half-percent is about a buck and a quarter per year per person in the city of Ann Arbor," she said.

Briere argued other cities with percent for art programs have significantly less dollars going to public art, and making a temporary cutback wasn't going to cripple Ann Arbor's program.

Comments

Kai Petainen

Thu, Dec 8, 2011 : 5:50 a.m.

The sculpture in front of city hall, is a monument to the HRWC. How blind was I, that I did not see this? It started with the HRWC. I thought they were about the environment and not art? They should have spent the money/time on problems -- dioxane, an unsolved oil spill, chromium, flash floods, local flooding problems, etc. I remember the HRWC giving me a lecture about how they were busy with a lot of issues and how they didn't have time to work on the oil spill, and that it was a local issue -- in that the Huron was a big river and they didn't have time for it. Yet, they had 4 years worth of time to work on a piece of art. A local piece of art. HRWC, there are MANY more towns along the Huron River. Each one of those towns should demand a your energy for their $750,000 piece of art as well. It's not fair to play political favors to Ann Arbor and neglect the other cities along this great river.
Now I know who was responsible for that art:
&quot;This is the culmination of four years of my work and that of former HRWC staff member Joan Martin, as well as the efforts of Janis Bobrin, the Washtenaw County Water Resources Commissioner, Margaret Parker, Jan Onder, and present and past members of the Ann Arbor Public Arts Commission&quot;
&quot;In the Fall of 2008, we hosted the State of the Huron Conference around Dreiseitl's visit and coordinated meetings with academics,local government officials, planners, and artists.&quot;
And yet, the news somehow avoided this point about the HRWC being involved with this thing. It's not the mayor who should be blamed for that thing, the HRWC report spells out who was responsible for it. HRWC, I was a fan of you, but no longer -- I feel betrayed. I'm not a fan of &quot;environmental&quot; art groups that waste that much money and avoid talking about pollution spills.

Kai Petainen

Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 4:48 p.m.

&quot;Another 'good news' event this fall was the installation of a public water sculpture that integrates stormwater into its artwork. It was installed at the Ann Arbor Municipal Center in early October. This is the culmination of four years of my work&quot; - Laura Rubin, HRWC
<a href="http://www.hrwc.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/HuronRiverReportWinter2011.pdf" rel='nofollow'>http://www.hrwc.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/HuronRiverReportWinter2011.pdf</a>
Laura, in my book that's two strikes against the HRWC.
1st strike:
The HRWC never spoke out about the oil spill that occurred in the river. This was one of the larger spills that has occurred on the river in the Ann Arbor area. It covered the river from the hospital area to Gallup. Not once did you say anything in the Ann Arbor news about it. You stayed quiet on the issue. Here you had a specific pollution event and for whatever reason, although you knew folks that helped with the cleanup, the HRWC was quiet. For an environmental agency to stay quiet about a pollution event, but to be vocal about a piece of art -- is disturbing to me.
2nd strike:
Based on the sentence above, you were partially responsible for the $750,000 piece of 'art'. A BIG thank you to the HRWC for placing artwork above environmental or public safety needs. Many folks in the Ann Arbor community do not view the art as 'good news'. There were cut-backs in public safety and money was spent on a small piece of art. To be proud that this was a 'culmination' of your work, is again... disturbing.
Since the HRWC was quiet on the oil spill and vocal on the art, it reminds me that the HRWC is perhaps more of a political organization than that of an environmental one.

Alan Goldsmith

Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 11:27 a.m.

Glad my Council Rep Marcia Higgins could find the time in her busy schedule to show up to vote against this, since she was invisible during the August Primary and November election campaigns and was too cowardly to show up for any public debates.

RUKiddingMe

Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 11:04 a.m.

This sudden 180 from so many council members is indeed suspect. Either there was something wrong with their first opinion or their second. And the &quot;It's only a buck and a quarter&quot; mentality is one that would get you fired in any responsible business environment. The fact that this is how anyone would justify any cost is enraging and depressing. You all DO know they just raised our water rates too, right? Next stop, $151-million train station next to existing train station.

Stephen Lange Ranzini

Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 4:36 a.m.

&quot;Sandi Smith, D-1st Ward, said she had what she called an &quot;epiphany&quot; while crunching the numbers and realizing the minimal impact the public art program has on city residents. &quot;The difference between 1 percent and a half-percent is about a buck and a quarter per year per person in the city of Ann Arbor,&quot; she said.&quot;
The tone is set at the top of any organization by it's leaders. The clear message this type of statement sends out to the rank and file employees is that &quot;it's okay to waste a little money here and there&quot;. Before you know it, $100 million is gone, poured down holes and in unnecessary vanity projects, while the public safety departments, roads and parks are starved of funds and neglected. In tough times in an organization that needs to cut and cut even more to balance budgets, and has run up nearly a half billion dollars in liabilities it is just such an unfortunate message!
The city leaders should instead be sending out messages that every dollar counts an is precious, that no money should lie around idle for years not serving it's purpose and that zero waste will be tolerated!

Kai Petainen

Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 5:27 p.m.

i'm annoyed. i did not know that the HRWC was partially responsible for the $750,000 art.
<a href="http://www.hrwc.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/HuronRiverReportWinter2011.pdf" rel='nofollow'>http://www.hrwc.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/HuronRiverReportWinter2011.pdf</a>
Go read their glowing review of the art in that document and how they were responsbile for it. I thought they were an environmental group and not an art group.
Name the artwork, just simply 'HRWC'. that article also lists those who were responsible for it.

RUKiddingMe

Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 10:59 a.m.

This is absolutely correct and well said. This &quot;it's only $x&quot; mentality is nonsensical and harmful in many ways. It would also never be tolerated in any business environment. If you used this as your justification for costs in any meeting of responsible people trying to figure out how to cut costs or make ends meet, that would probably be your last day at that organization. At A2 council, it seems to be the mission statement.

Frustrated in A2

Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 1:53 a.m.

Police officers and dispatchers are out of jobs yet the city can buy art. I'm just beyond disappointed in our mayor and council, why do people continue to re-elect them???

Kai Petainen

Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 4:26 a.m.

the people at city hall represent their area of the city. as a result, there is no sense in getting upset with them, as they are representing what their area of the city wants. this is what ann arbor wants.

Halter

Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 12:49 a.m.

Seriously -- time for a recall of the entire council and start all over again....requirement to get re-elected: no artists; no tree-huggers; and no Residents of Ward 1-4 or 5-1.....

Kai Petainen

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 11:12 p.m.

as much as i dislike the outcome and i appreciate the courage of Lumm, I also respect the desires of a community.
73% (8/11) or 70% (7/10) of Ann Arbor wants the art and so I'll respect the desire of Ann Arborites.
congratulations on your victory.

william bond

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 9:56 p.m.

Gee I'm sorry ...I thought a tax dollar was a tax dollar.....I guess in the Ann Arbor government shell game if you paint an apple pink it's no longer an apple....Glad the Ann Arbor voters got full value for their stupidity...Thank you Mr Barnham....

Concerned

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 9:49 p.m.

Maybe when you call 911 a sculpture of a police officer or firefighter will show up to help you???!!!

ralph mcgraw

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 9:44 p.m.

How about changing the &quot;ordinance&quot; or &quot;rule&quot; or &quot;law&quot; so that the almost $1 million over the next 3 years in &quot;public art&quot; money can be switched over to the general fund? I thought we were supposed to be the smartest city in America? A million bucks on public art programs while the University sucks up more land and erodes the tax base. Put this issue on a ballot and let us decide how we want OUR money spent. Wow, the MENSA people must be doubled-up laughing at our intelligence!

Sallyxyz

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 9:39 p.m.

What an unconscionable move. $1.5 million left to spend on art while police are being cut. Very screwed up priorities.
&quot;...the minimal impact the public art program has on city residents.&quot; BINGO This is the only intelligent statement in the article.
&quot;That includes about $395,900 from streets, $68,850 from parks, $228,700 from the water utility, $197,240 from sewer, $71,270 from stormwater and $1,750 from solid waste.&quot;
So, skimming from vital areas is ok, leaving potholes the size of craters all over town, and parks that have drastically cut back on mowing to the point that several of the memorial benches in Gallup Park have been ruined in the past year by out of control weeds that engulfed the benches and ruined them.
Public art is the agenda of a few people in the city and their cronies on the arts commission. This does NOT represent the wishes of the majority of the people in Ann Arbor. Take care of vital services first, and for goodness sake, fix the crumbling streets and potholes. Oh, and while the city is at it, how about doing some plowing and salting now that winter is here. Buy some salt and USE IT with that $1.5 million before the residents of AA start suing the city for the accidents that the icy streets are causing due to lack of salting and plowing.
Put the issue of public art on a ballot and let the residents of AA decide what is important to them, not what is important to just a few politicians and their cronies with their own &quot;politically correct&quot; agendas.

pbehjatnia

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 8:34 p.m.

top of the art world?
the public art we have is the bottom of the barrel in the art world, dear mayor. really and truly. in fact, we are the vermin on the outside of the flour barrel looking in through the cracks.
gotta go. my dog would like to water some public art.

jj

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 8:20 p.m.

So the next time someone gets robbed, assaulted, groped, or raped, they can admire the public art while waiting for a police car to arrive.....

Ruth

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 7:38 p.m.

I watched this part of the Council meeting. I believe there were 30 or 40 citizens who spoke on this resolution. All of them were asking the Council to keep the program going. Someone asked that the Council members put the issue on the ballot. But no one spoke to support the original move to decrease from 1% to 1/2%. I support the decrease. I regret that I was not present to speak in support of the reduction.

a2person

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 10:33 p.m.

This was my point. The tenor of posts here never represents accurately the feelings of those who vote, or participate.

Usual Suspect

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 7:04 p.m.

So when does the public get to be involved in selecting the public art? Let's have the public submit proposals and the public vote on them.
Or would that threaten too many AAPAC jobs?

obviouscomment

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 6:46 p.m.

&quot;It's not just a feel-good program because we think our city should be at the top of the arts world,&quot; said Mayor John Hieftje, citing the economic benefits of public art.
What exactly are those economic benefits???

golfer

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 11:30 p.m.

if the mayor said that he needs to sit on the art board. he is just as out of touch as they are.

grye

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 7:11 p.m.

Maybe the mayor believes that millions will flock to Ann Arbor to stand in awe of the new water feature in front of his building. Just think of the economic boom that single piece of art will bring.

pbehjatnia

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 6:41 p.m.

i am soooo comfortable. i am sooo comfortable, in fact, that i will vote all of these bozos back into office again in 2012. why? because I am an ANN ARBORITE. yep. i am sooooo comfortable.
kudos to briere and co. for actually holding the line.
i will be sure to let my dogs lift their legs on some tax dollars on our walks today.

Sparty

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 6:31 p.m.

Well, the invisible woman in the 4th Ward was voted back in and Mike Anglin was voted back in and turned traitor as soon as he was re-elected. Let's hope people have learned a lesson in the recent election and get out and vote in November -- and remove all of the incumbents on the City Council !

golfer

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 11:24 p.m.

mike and his partner are in my ward. i will not vote for either of them again.

15crown00

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 6:08 p.m.

no cops,no fireman. But we got ART.What are u thinking City Council?

golfer

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 11:21 p.m.

they are not thinking at all. that is why we are in this p%$$#@* contest.

RTFM

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 6:07 p.m.

Just seems that the council thought half-off was the way to go. Doing only half the job seems to be the council's way of doing things.

Jaime

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 6:04 p.m.

I moved out of the city 11 years ago and have never regretted it.. This is just one of the reasons.

Mike58

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 7:26 p.m.

I look forward to the day we move. Kids are nearly out of school.
Ann Arbor used to be a very nice place. It's just gotten pathetic. We enjoyed the time we have lived here but it's time to move on.

Robbo

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 6:31 p.m.

We don't miss you.

leaguebus

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 5:52 p.m.

Arts funding has been dropping for years, so I would suggest is that this money goes to local artists. There are many great artists in our community, use them!

Sallyxyz

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 9:51 p.m.

I agree. The so-called experts on AAPAC have decided they are the smart ones, however. Unfortunately, they are not elected, rather they are cronies of the city officials. Get rid of the AAPAC!

Usual Suspect

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 7:07 p.m.

According to the AAPAC,, the members of which are all smarter and more enlightened than you and I, there are no worthy artists within Ann Arbor or even Michigan.

baker437

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 5:50 p.m.

Anyone one want to buy a 1000 sq. foot ranch style house in Ann Arbor?
I am tired of my tax dollars being wasted!

baker437

Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 2:33 a.m.

I can choose where I live and thus where my tax dollars go.
I grew up in a rural township in MI. No public art program just basic government services and low taxes. Everyone seem for most part happy with this less is more approach. So that is my goal to move to a nice township somewhere.

golfer

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 11:28 p.m.

snark12: we are not the government we are a city. we have different ways to get our money and spend it. we have a council not two houses. they have hidden agendas. we do not. oops sorry i forgot art. you can buy a painting at lowes for $39.95. CANNOT COMPARE WASH TO AA.

snark12

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 10:11 p.m.

In a representative democracy you are not always going to agree with how every one of your tax dollars are being spent. My point is, If you're so upset over such a trivial issue, you need a new perspective. Good government is about managing the dollars, not the pennies.
At at the Federal level, for instance, we hear much outrage about funding for PBS (about $300 million per year, or $1 per person) but very little conversation about the cost of two major wars that go on for years.

baker437

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 8:43 p.m.

@snark12
That type of thinking that it is "just a few pennies per person" is what breeds this kind of wastefulness in government.

Usual Suspect

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 7:07 p.m.

... which makes it OK to waste it? No.

snark12

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 6:42 p.m.

You should figure out how much of your tax dollars are going for art annually. Hint: it wouldn't even buy a good cup of coffee.

guyfroma2mi

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 5:31 p.m.

Apparently I'm in the minority (though I confess to not living in the city) in believing that once Ann Arbor starts down the path of value-engineering out one piece of the what makes Ann Arbor the vibrant city that it is, we begin the steady decline into mediocrity that characterizes dozens of mid-sized Midwestern cities. Certainly not cities sought out by the types of high-tech and research companies that we're trying to attract. I suspect that more than a few of the detractors of what is a small drop in the bucket, in comparison to the overall budget, also enjoy complaining about how U of M pays no property taxes- ignoring the fact that there would be no Ann Arbor without it, let alone a city that consistently finds itself on national Top 10 lists and is in a county that has a (still too high) unemployment rate that is the second-lowest in the state.

Brad

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 4:39 p.m.

It occurred to me that with just a couple of small additions to the &quot;water features&quot; of the new art fountain that it would then speak volumes about Ann Arbor and where it's going. I am of course talking about a water ski jump, a shark, and the Fonz.

Elena

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 4:38 p.m.

I am a resident of Ann Arbor and am very disappointed that Smith, Taylor, Hohnke and Higgins (my ward rep) changed their votes on this. This proposal made sense; a temporary reduction that would have reflected a council that was appropriately responding to a decrease in city funds. It seemed like an obvious vote to make but they just don't &quot;get it&quot;. The council and the Mayor have been described as &quot;out of touch&quot; and &quot;tone deaf&quot;. Because they voted in favor of it just weeks ago, and then just &quot;changed their minds&quot;, I am concerned that the reason is darker than not being in touch or hearing concerns.
I believe that the majority of residents usually support public funding for art, it is just that when we are short of funds, and when vital city departments and maintenance projects are cut back or eliminated, how the heck can you justify not reducing the budget on art? I have privately supported the Art Center fundraisers. I enjoy the contribution that they make to Ann Arbor. Mandatory taxpayer funding is a separate matter. I really hope that the Ann Arbor taxpayers do not re-elect Mayor Hieftje and council members that blocked this, including Derezinksi, Teall and Anglin because they did not have the common sense (or whatever their reasoning was) to temporarily reduce the funding for a non-vital expenditure during these tough economic times.

Tom Wieder

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 4:23 p.m.

I support public funding for public art, and I don't have a magic answer for what is the right formula. Where I challenge the Mayor and others who defend the current program is their misleading claim that &quot;this money&quot; couldn't be used for other purposes, such as police or street repair. That's not really true. If 1% of every capital project goes to art, elimination of the art funding would reduce the cost of the projects by 1%. That savings could result in lower taxes for residents to pay for the capital projects, or could go into higher general fund taxes to pay for police or streets or anything else. The specific dollars collected as part of a capital project's funding may not be permitted to be diverted to general fund purposes, but there's the option of not collecting the 1% in the first place. The way it works now is that the Council or the public approves a capital project, and the arts funding included in it is virtually invisible and not discussed. If arts funding can't compete openly and honestly for public support, it shouldn't be done on the sly.

W.J.Mundus

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 4:08 p.m.

I have a suggestion for the council regarding &quot;public art&quot;.
Let the city council consider some retroactive compensation to the citizens who,in the past ,have created items of &quot;public art&quot;and donated them to the city. This action might include paintings under the Huron street bridge,weathervanes at Gallup park and on the old Fire House,ducks on the roof at the park and a working sun dial on the Hands-on-Museum building.
I am sure they will find our rates dirt cheap in next to a $750,000 bronze surf board
Available by appointment only.
Bil Mundus

clownfish

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 4:08 p.m.

Taking a cue from RedState.com- If you don't like it here in Ann Arbor, it being either a communist enclave or a monarchy, you are free to leave.
Right?

transplant

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 4:06 p.m.

Mind-boggling, but I am not surprised. I am picturing part of Monty Python and the Holy Grail at the idea of Smith having an &quot;epiphany&quot;.

Carole

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 4:02 p.m.

Well, I guess I have only one thing to say -- I say cut the city council--elections are coming up and the citizens need to do what is the right thing--remove those from office who have no interest in serving the citizens of Ann Arbor.

B. Jean

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 3:55 p.m.

"The city pays for art through the public art program.&quot; WRONG! The CITIZENS pay for art. This is the basic flaw in the logic that allows council to feel it is up to them and not the voters. The city &quot;spends&quot; MY tax dollars on art instead of public safety and other primary necessities. They are my tax dollars and I want a say in how they are spent. Put it on a ballot and let the citizens make the determination. And PLEASE Mr. Mayor, loose that tired lame argument about fraud. Get real, all you have to do is change the same ordinance that created the sacred art cow. We get it, when will you? And as far as being at the &quot;top of the art world&quot;, here's a headline for you Mr. Mayor... &quot;Ann Arbor at the TOP of the Art World AND the BOTTOM of public safety and services&quot;. Bless the council members with the guts not to cave to the art lobby and the ethics and good conscience to do the right thing. You have my vote and my admiration. I don't know how the rest of those council clowns sleep at night.

Carole

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 4:03 p.m.

Very well written. Thank you.

leezee

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 3:44 p.m.

Jane Lumm, Stephen Kunselman and Sabra Briere — appear to be the voices of reason within this ridiculous group. For those posters who claim these responses do not represent the majority and are mainly from people living outside of Ann Arbor, remember how Jane Lumm came to sit on city council after the election this November.

Lolly

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 3:39 p.m.

Thanks to the city council for braving the nay-sayers. Art is essential to quality of life. It is how we tell ourselves and others who we are and what is important to us. If chosen wisely, the art installed under this program will endure long past the time when present economic conditions are a dim, distant memory. The silent majority supports this program.

grye

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 7:28 p.m.

Art is not essential just as chocolate cake is not essential to one's diet. It is a nice to have. Police, fire department, water, sewer, roads, trash pickup. These are essential.

thecompound

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 5:25 p.m.

Sure we need art, we just need to put it on a budget, so why not reduce the funds? Note I said reduce, not get rid of all together.

golfer

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 4:14 p.m.

not true. put it on the ballot and you will see whom supports the program

Robbo

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 4:12 p.m.

The vocal majority does not support this program.
Everything you say about art is true - but it should never be with the tax pates money.

Carole

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 4:06 p.m.

Sorry, totally disagree with you. Art is absolutely marvelous, but the safety and welfare of the citizens have to come first -- then, if funds are available for those items no necessary to the good of the citizens. Added to that, the citizens never had an opportunity to even vote on an &quot;art&quot; fund, the city fathers took it upon themselves to take from &quot;Peter (necessities) to pay for &quot;Peter&quot; (non-necessities).

jeff4179

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 3:38 p.m.

Finally, Council has decided to listen to the people they represent and keep diverting funds from other projects so we can continue to have more public art like that metal thing in front of the new super-expensive city building! (sarcasm alert)
Counsel is supposed to represent citizens, not ignore them. Disappointing, but not at all surprising.
And anyone know whether Marsha Chamberlin is paid as the chairperson of the Public Art Commission?

clownfish

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 4:06 p.m.

Did you speak in the public forum?

a2person

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 3:34 p.m.

City Council members,
You probably already know this, but please keep in mind that the frequent annarbor.com posters do NOT in ANY WAY represent the majority of the citizens of Ann Arbor. The comments (likely many from people who don't even live in Ann Arbor) tend toward the negative, irritable, conservative, and nasty. Most of the people I know in real life don't even read the comments here any more because they are so disgusted by them. The voters show our priorites time and time again, and they don't align at all with the general consensus of the comments here.
Thank you for your work. I believe you are a thoughtful group, working hard and making difficult decisions, with little positive feedback. Thank you for all you do.

grye

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 7:06 p.m.

Glad to see you are all for frivilous waste of our taxpayers money. The city shouldn't provide the basic services to maintain a sound community. It should have art, and nothing but art. While were at it, let's commission a statue of the mayor for finding ways to spend our money on stuff we don't need.

golfer

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 4:25 p.m.

sorry typo:
spending money are art! would you rather pay your will or look at art?
should have been spending money for art? would you rather pay your bill or look at art?

golfer

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 4:20 p.m.

sorry do not agree. i think most people that do these comments do live in ann arbor. making a statement like this based on no facts is wrong. just like you say we are doing so are you. i think the council is doing the best they can. art is so far down the list of what we must and need to do. people are laying off workers. they need too do this to survive. yet we are spending money are art! would you rather pay your will or look at art?

Robbo

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 4:13 p.m.

You gotta be kidding. They are a thoughtless group who waste our tax money on frivolities.

Simon Green

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 3:30 p.m.

&quot;When it comes down to it, it would be essentially illegal for us to take these funds and spend them in the general fund,&quot; he added. &quot;It would be fraud.&quot;
I recommend a statue of George Orwell be built.

Carole

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 4:08 p.m.

It was fraud for the council to take from the general fund and put into an Art Fund. Mileages/general funds are for the operations of the city -- not to put up art.

golfer

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 3:25 p.m.

First thanks city council. I have always had a hard time on voting day. You just made it simple. I am going to vote against my two reps on the council. Now lets talk about voting it back in.
The diff between 1% and ½% is $1.00 vs. $1.25. Ok it is not the money it is the idea we are looking at best spend for the buck. Oh by the way $.25 times 4 is a $1.00. lets look at it from the other side. Since it is not much difference $.25 on the dollar. Why not cut it back instead of keeping it as it is.
You will take out $963,000 out of the budget the next three years. That is a joke. Once you talked about turning off street lights to save money. You have laided off workers. I think if you were in the real world (business) the board of directors would fire you.
You also say no money or it cost too much for lights at crosswalks. Crosswalks with lights could save lives.
Taking money from other budgets is plain dumb. Have you driven down any streets?. I know the money has to come from someplace. I sure hope you read some of the comments that will be posted. But why read it when you are set in your way about art.
best quote from the meeting. &quot;Briere argued other cities with percent for art programs have significantly less dollars going to public art, and making a temporary cutback wasn't going to cripple Ann Arbor's program.&quot;

justcurious

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 3:23 p.m.

Talk about flip-floppers!

law827

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 3:21 p.m.

Of course they did. No surprise there.

Robbo

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 3:17 p.m.

This is disgusting. Slash the budgets of police, fire, road repair but ya gotta have art, no matter how it screws with the budget and the people's wishes.

Ron Granger

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 3:12 p.m.

That is good news for Ann Arbor. Great cities have excellent art and other cultural attractions. They are essential if Ann Arbor is to compete in bringing top talent and businesses to the area.
Eliminating the art fund is a path to getting your town known for one thing - being another podunk with no culture. Just another fly-over rust-belt town. A has-been of the auto-industry.
Businesses already have trouble recruiting here. Ann Arbor does better than other Michigan cities, but it is still a *very* tough sell against the alternatives. University graduates leave in droves. What would it take to keep them here, starting businesses? Eliminating art and filling potholes won't do it.
There will always be crime and potholes. The art fund won't change that, no matter how much some pretend it will. You will never hear &quot;I'm moving to Ann Arbor - they have no potholes!&quot;
The idea that Ann Arbor is going to get a bunch of great art free is absurd. Where is it? Why hasn't it happened? Why would a good artist spend thousands on a piece in this economy and give it away - to Ann Arbor?
The city needs to do a better job of managing the fund. They need to stop squandering the funds to embellish government offices and buildings. The entire process needs to be more open. They need to be more accountable on where art is placed and which art is purchased. All of the art I've seen to date is really quite mediocre.

Ron Granger

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 11:15 p.m.

@useless: &quot;Art does not bring businesses, low taxes (or even tax breaks), safe streets, skilled talent pool and abundant parking does.&quot;
--
How do you reconcile that statement with the fact that Silicon Valley has twice the startups as any other US city? It is essentially the opposite of what you suggest. The same can be said for the #2 startup city, NY. And then Boston, LA...
The talent pool doesn't stick around if the community isn't great. Show me any poll or research that shows talent places an emphasis on potholes.

Oh yea Ron ,I know if I was a business considering locating here the first thing I would look at was if the city spent money on public art............Geez.There sure are a lot of insulated and out of touch people here in my town

golfer

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 5:57 p.m.

Businesses already have trouble recruiting here. Ann Arbor does better than other Michigan cities, but it is still a *very* tough sell against the alternatives. University graduates leave in droves. What would it take to keep them here, starting businesses? Eliminating art and filling potholes won't do it.
they can drive down a pot hole street for an interview. then say they do not take care of public streets. oh look at that art going to stay? bull!
There will always be crime and potholes. The art fund won't change that, no matter how much some pretend it will. You will never hear &quot;I'm moving to Ann Arbor - they have no potholes!&quot;
no you not hear them say i am moving to ann arbor because of ART either
The idea that Ann Arbor is going to get a bunch of great art free is absurd. Where is it? Why hasn't it happened? Why would a good artist spend thousands on a piece in this economy and give it away - to Ann Arbor?
ok then do not get $750,000 on one project.
The city needs to do a better job of managing the fund. They need to stop squandering the funds to embellish government offices and buildings. The entire process needs to be more open. They need to be more accountable on where art is placed and which art is purchased. All of the art I've seen to date is really quite mediocre.
come on this sounds just like a person on the art commission. blame everyone else but lets buy paintings.

thecompound

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 5:21 p.m.

Yes, Robbo, it's not the high salaries or access to world class research that brings doctors and educators here.......it's the art!

Carole

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 4:12 p.m.

There has always been tons of art and cultural events here in Ann Arbor. What you state just is not true -- and, how are folks to get to all this marvelous stuff if the roads/streets are in disrepair, the safety of citizens unsure because of all of the cuts in the police force, and what's to keep the art safe if the fire department is not brought up to staff. More, importantly, these funds were not elected on by the citizens -- merely taken by the council and mayor.

dotdash

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 3:36 p.m.

Art does bring business, Robbo. Ann Arbor has a reputation for being an enlightened, progressive, intellectual kind of town, one that educated people from the East and West Coasts don't mind moving to. And *that* brings business. Do you think there would be the number of medical-related start-ups that there are here unless doctors and educators were willing to live here? Ever wonder why the faculty at U of M is better than the faculty at any other U-of-other-Midwestern-state? Let's think long term and let's play to our strengths.

Robbo

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 3:24 p.m.

1. Art does not bring business. Economic conditions do.
2. Ann Arbor already is just another podunk town. Been on Liberty and State Street lately? The chains are increasing, along with the empty storefronts, and the cool funky stores that gave Ann Arbor so long ago are on the way out.
3. A fully staffed police department decreases crime.
Hats off to the three council members who had the courage and wisdom to vote for slashing this fund. It should be eliminated.

glfroma2

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 3:10 p.m.

How about using the money to provide better services to the citizens of Ann Arbor who are allready overtaxed? Maybe leaf and Christmas tree pickup.

Sparty

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 6:22 p.m.

Well, the art in front of City Hall doesn't work and the newest art project is according to the commission &quot;not visible to the public&quot;. How's that for for shared resources?

golfer

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 5:50 p.m.

ron would you rather for use to burn more gas and emission. because we have to mow more vs raking. but you know what we can always look at art. come on be fair!

Ron Granger

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 3:16 p.m.

Should the rest of us pay to mow your lawn and trim your hedges too?
It's your yard - deal with it.
The art, on the other hand, is like a park. It is a shared resource.

grye

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 3:10 p.m.

$1.5 million can purchase a lot of art. I would have been much happier if the funding stopped until at least half of the funds were depleted. It is a crying shame that $750K was wasted on the water sculpture in front of the &quot;palace&quot;. How long before it even works so we can all enjoy the pretty blue lights?

BornNRaised

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 3:08 p.m.

&quot;The mayor and other council members stressed there isn't a link between the city's general fund — which pays for police and fire protection — and funding for public art.&quot;
Wasn't just brought to the attention of King John that in fact, $50,000 came from the General Fund for the art in the new city hall due to the art expenditures going past the 'cap'?

Ignatz

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 3:07 p.m.

One of two things must have happened. Either not enough citizens voiced their displeasure over the arts spending or the Mayor and Council know better than everyone else.

cubicle

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 3:05 p.m.

FIVE people completely reversed their opinion in a matter of two weeks? That doesn't sound sketchy at all.

Urban Sombrero

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 3:05 p.m.

As tone-deaf, overall, as this council has been to date is anyone really surprised by this?

Go Blue

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 3:02 p.m.

Wecome to the monarchy of Ann Arbor……………….we the people, mean nothing…………………a handful of council members rule………we have no say in matters important to us and our opinions are meaningless. And this folks, is Ann Arbor today.

clownfish

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 4:03 p.m.

&quot;We the people&quot; are encouraged to show up at the meetings and/or run for office. Get to it!!

Ron Granger

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 3:19 p.m.

Did you go to any of the council meetings and speak?
Did you write a letter to the council?

rusty shackelford

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 3:02 p.m.

Encourage street art rather than fining businesses that allow it and you get a lot of free public art.
The arts funding needs to be better spent on things that foster the arts community, no matter the level of funding.

Ron Granger

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 3:17 p.m.

The street art is working out great in Flint.

Alan Goldsmith

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 11:25 a.m.

Kudos to Jane Lumm, Stephen Kunselman and Sabra Briere for their courage. Let's now move forward with spending millions more on art that 'truly reflects the values of our community' and making sure the political cowards who voted for this are all targeted for defeat, including our wimp of a Mayor, in the August and November elections in 2012. And congrats to the Ann Arbor Dot Com editorial board for getting its wish too--by throwing your news blog's support editorially behind this waste of public dollars. Merry Christmas.

Kai Petainen

Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 5:17 p.m.

Let's rename the HRWC to the HRWA (Huron River Watershed Art)
&quot;Another 'good news' event this fall was the installation of a public water sculpture that integrates stormwater into its artwork. It was installed at the Ann Arbor Municipal Center in early October. This is the culmination of four years of my work&quot; - Laura Rubin, HRWC